Responding to Motion for Summary Judgment
Hi, I am hoping that someone can help me out with this. I am being sued for a loan from Beneficial which I have defaulted on due to circumstances leading one to another. I am unable to afford an attorney and wish to not have one since I do not deny that I owe the money and wish to settle this debt once and for all.
1. I had borrowed $10,000 in July 2006 to keep business afloat but still ended up closing down the end of August 2006.
2. I became a single mother of 2 small children in November 2006.
3. After living off savings, mutual funds, etc, I finally gained employment in July 2007 that paid enough to cover necessary expenses but yet not enough for daycare.
4. In February 2008, my place of employment announced that it was downsizing so my financial status was once again not on stable ground. I was finally transferred to another branch in my place of employment in May 2008.
5. Unfortunately by the time I was ready to start working with Beneficial again to settle this debt, I am being sued.
Now, the reason it has gotten as far as to the Motion for Summary Judgment stage. I had questioned about the Plaintiff being the correct party to take me to court to collect on the debt even though they had a copy of the Original Contract. So I had denied everything except that the Original Contract was true and correct in the Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, etc. And I had also sent a request for Discovery to the Plaintiff due to the following reasons:
1. Even though it did include a copy of the Original Contract, the Summons court papers I received were from a lawyer and at the end of the document it stated “This is an attempt to collect a debt” so I had assumed it was a law firm collection agency.
2. The Plaintiff, Beneficial Nebraska, Inc, is the original party that I had signed with but I had received a notice back in December 2007 that the Beneficial Nebraska, Inc. location in my city has closed so my account was transferred to Beneficial Illinois, Inc. and was assigned a new account number. I had assumed that the Beneficial Nebraska, Inc . No longer existed and the court papers did not state any of the new information.
3. The amount they state that I owe is about $200 more than the amount stated in my last collection notice. And the dates were only 9 days apart.
Can someone please review my response to a Summary Judgment and let me know if there's something that could do more harm than good? Or if I am missing something that is crucial to this case? I was planning on sending this certified to the Plaintiff's attorney and copy to the court. Thank you for your time!
NOW COMES the Defendant responds to qualify her answers to the Request for Admissions, Request for Production of Documents, and Interrogatories. According to Rule 33, the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient detail to identify the records from which the answer may be ascertained. The information requested by the Plaintiff should be known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff, Beneficial Nebraska, Inc.
1. The Defendant does not deny that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the original contract with the Plaintiff, Beneficial Nebraska, Inc.
2. According to the document dated March 3, 2008, Exhibit C, the balance stated $17,020.97. The Plaintiff states the amount owed as of March 12, 2008 is $13,294.14 plus interest in the amount of $3,915.64 which comes to a total of $17,209.78. Therefore, there is a difference in the amount stated that is owed by the Defendant.
3. According to the document dated December 7, 2007, Exhibit B, the Defendant's account has been transferred to another party and has been assigned a new account number. Therefore, the Defendant had reasons to believe that the Plaintiff, Beneficial Nebraska, Inc is not the correct proper party to settle this matter.
4. The Defendant wishes to settle the matter on this account with the proper party. If the Plaintiff, Beneficial Nebraska, Inc is still the true and correct party, the Defendant requests that the settlement offer made on February 1, 2008 in the amount of $10,065.47, Exhibit D, be extended.